Telegram-herald., 1887-10-09
NEW IDEAS
on THs sTRssr hallway MATTER.
Ihs B@slasss sias Of the AEEa~spt-~s
FF41xbisss Haze Essr Bees caves .
tks fEeseHg C2EapAEy he ss~
Las ana tbs Ola
70 tAs Es,sos ef tAs TsaEsx.A- aEssua

10 return to chart sne ocnpass saa secure
correct bearings. such = Point has pew
been arrived a. n the discussion over the
proposed exteasioA of the 6rx1d Rapids
street Railway upon Jsfisrsoa-sss. state
| and Cnsrry-sts. 81 fSY the sole end aud ain
Of the parties opposing the proposed exien-
sion would seen 10 lave been 10 eefog the
real question. and 10 mystify tie general
public s. TO the real merits of that question
A thousand aud one sAb-questioas aud
petty side points have been sprung one after
another. with the evident intent 10 distract
attention from the main issue. Now, then,
what is the main issus-the rsai question
II is whether the principle shall be resog-
niEsd and the precedent established that
whenever al individual property holder or
! n number Of individual property holders on
the ground Of injury 70 private interests
protest against public necessity that pro-
test shall be recognized, and that necessity
he deniea by the constituted authorities
| This Is the real question, the whole euee-
| ton, in a nutshell. No sane person will
honestly deny that, If lawns. shade trees
and diving privileges are 10 be held sacred
on one street they should be held sacred on
every street. Ii il be once recognized as a
| legitimate argument against the conssruo.
| tion OF branch OF the Grand Rapids street
railway Oh Jeisrson-ave., Cherry-st, or
| Stzte-st, that the building OF sucn rail-
| way may directly or incidentally lessen the
| value OF property belonging 10 ANY resident
! on those streets, then IL must certainly De
| acknowledged that whenever any property
| holder on any inoronghfAre in the city
claims damage 20 MS private properly that
| claim must be held good against
| DEMONSTRATION ofany street railway which
| would soon do away with street railway
building entirely. Ii is not, as has been
all along argued, ST all a question OF what
| the whole or any part OF the holders of
| frontage on any proposed line wish or DO
not wish in the matter. IL is question OF
what will do the most good lor The largest
numDer-of what Will be OF the greatest
benefit 10 the general public, The Com
mon Council acl. or are supposed 70 act. in
| granting any public franchise not IA the
| Interests OF any street, sny class or any
clique whatever, but in the name aud for
the benefit oil the whole city. Acdng on
| this lmPregnsble principle the Council
| have allowed the construction of 4 street
| railway line Gu Lagraye, Fulton. South
Division, Lyon aud other prominent resi-
deHce streets, the property holders on ssy
| and every one OF which streets are entitled
| 10 just As much consideration as the pro-
| perty holders on Jefferson ave-, Cherry or
State-sts: and furthermore the construc-
ton OF lines on these several streets have
recessitsted, among other conveniences,
| what Msyor DiEeman emphasizes as dan
| gefous curves, but which arc often essen
| tlal in the construction of any line of street
| railway or any street, and which will GER
tsinly be no more dangerous 10 the people
living along the route OF any proposed new
lines lthe Caoie lines included) than the
existing curves are 10 the people living
along The exi.lng lines of the old con-
pany. In or6e.ing the construction Of
lines (iEcludlng toe cu-ves) on the several
| streets already occupied by the Company,
the Council were influenced solely by the
considerations OF public policy. They
| knew that the best interests OF the city rs a
city woIld be snbseryed by the building Of
| those lines. They knew the same thing
! when they ordered the construction of
any additional line on Jeilerson-ave.,
| State aud Cherry -sts., and il was I'M
possible and unnecessary in this case,
| as it will be in every case OF tAe kind 10 in
| quire at length into or seriously consider
| the preferences Of individual property
holders. The mere fact that street rail-
| way company, which has already invested
| enormously IN It's business, aud has all of
| its investment at stake, is itself in favor Of
| constructing new line involving an ad-
ditionsl outlay OF many thousands of dol
| lars, is of itself prima iacie evidence that
the proposed new line is public necessity.
! And for this simple reason. that any street
| railway line depends absolutely ana excla-
| sively upon the public patronage for it.
| support. Ii the Grand Rapids Street Rail
| way Company were not first thoroughly
convinced that the patronage extended to
| the proposed new ltne would be LIBERAL
| one, they would act ike parcel of fools in
| making the large additional outlay involved
| lfor II isa business and not boy play or
| spite work that makes money for street
railway company or any other corporati0nj
| and IL the new line is sure Of = liberal pat
| ronake, that means that the people gener.
ally are anxious TO patronize At. and II the
| public want TO patronize the road il is Ger.
tainly public necessity.
Now one word as 10 the side issues. The
company has been held up TO the people as
a public beneficiary, receiving immense
| doEatiOns from the city. The fact il that
the city never donated the Grand Rapids
Street Railway Company any thing. not
one Of the $4,000 worth Of franchises
which have been harped about 30 much.
The company did not receive these fran
chises from the city at all. and so far from
their being q donation from anybody. they
were all purchased for cash from the old
street railway companies. There were three
of these old street railway companies
each holding il. own distinct fran
chise, when the Grand Rapids Street
! Railway Company was organized. These
tnree original companies dis receive their
franchises as gift from the city. Bni the
old companies sold and did not present
| these franchises 10 the Grand Rapids Street
| Railway Company. and recsi ved in the
neighborbood Of 500 90 for their property.
Assursdly this vss not donstion from the
city of Grand Rapids 70 the present Grand
| Rapids Street Railway Company The one
single conosssiOn Of value asked for bv the
| company Of the city and finally obtained
vas the merging ef the three 0riginsl 0r3i-
| uanass into one ordinance. which va
ssked f8r ard granted o. ths ground 81
bsiBg absolutely essential - the proper
| operation Of the Compsnrs nsv and
! greatly enlsrze8 and iuErgFed system. and
g. msffef of convsulsDcs - TIE Doancll
/ II fstnre dealings with foe Conpsnv -
much f0r tbe relations OF TIE Company "a
the Common Council.
A rezsr6s tbe resfio8s ~ the Csmps1r
e. the ~ g. lsrgs iis best business intsT
ssts snd TIE gresf masses ~ tbs fssoris
there cen - 30 disagreement snsong candid
thsnking men. lt must - rsrne11 bere1
thai the Con 2snF vss orzs1ized nearly fFs
v-sTs aEa ara sterted With few O. none 0|
/ ths a. TsEst sTse sua ere11rsgeBe8ts Which
roB'd s8rrou1d amos sny strest "a. vs7
/ venfars ID ffrsnd Esrias tedaT. TIE p0s.u-
isfien then wAs s08ut fags - sEs p g.
= 80 nov Oar strsel "A rzg svs.sn rss
/ unosrzs Eize1 frsFalsftsrg. s11 rseT ra
/ svsteu vestevs-. srS - ro1f So spslceV
fsr - gar nafns srlicie tas, s BAD become >
5aft saa souros - ri1tef.ie- Feor.it ge1.
] s--.t- ~-oFe---4 - 49, ~ s..< -slffrs~